Restrict Independent Grassroots Political Committees? What the heck does that mean?

According to On The Issues there are organizations that raise money independently of any candidate's campaign committee to either support or oppose a particular candidate. Or to either support or oppose a particular issue.

These organizations are called '527 organizations.'

An example of a 527 is MoveOn.org.

If a candidate supports restrictions on these committees their funding would be restricted and would have to be funded by candidate committees and party committees.

To me, this sounds like the two-party system trying to consolidate more power for themselves.

Personally, I do NOT support restricting any independent organization, even if I do not agree with that organization's politics. That is the WHOLE purpose of free speech!

For instance, I don't agree with the politics of MoveOn.org but I am certainly not in support of the government coming down and trying to tell them that they are only allowed to raise x amount of dollars. That is complete bull shit!

Those in support of restrictions state that the primary purpose of a 527 is to influence the election or the defeat of a federal candidate. Well, no shit!!!!

I would not necessarily say that this particular issue is a "litmus test" issue for me to sway me on a candidate one way or another but it is damn close.

To me, a politician that says he supports restrictions on funding of independent organizations is a politician that is telling me that he does not support any independent political organization.

Even though I am conservative by nature and consider myself a Republican, I still do not completely trust the two party system and I certainly do not trust one of the two parties trying to consolidate more power for themselves by restricting independent organizations to do what they do best: get the word out to the common people about what is going on in the country.